logo
‘A warning signal': is this the beginning of the end for late-night comedy?

‘A warning signal': is this the beginning of the end for late-night comedy?

The Guardian4 days ago
'I acknowledge we're losing money,' comedian Jon Stewart told viewers this week. 'Late-night TV is a struggling financial model. We are all basically operating a Blockbuster kiosk inside a Tower Records.'
The remark did not dull Stewart's righteous anger about his friend Stephen Colbert's show being cancelled by CBS after its parent company Paramount settled a lawsuit with Donald Trump – and a week before Paramount's $8bn merger with Skydance was approved by federal regulators.
Stewart did, however, point to another truth about the decline of a format that has been part of America's cultural fabric for three-quarters of a century.
Late-night TV serves a nightly supper menu of comic monologues, variety sketches, celebrity interviews and musical acts. It turned hosts such as Johnny Carson, Jay Leno, David Letterman, Jimmy Fallon, Jimmy Kimmel, Conan O'Brien and Colbert into a familiar and reassuring presence in millions of homes. It was also relatively cheap to make and offered lucrative returns from advertising, representing a cash cow for major networks.
Stephen Farnsworth, a co-author of Late Night With Trump: Political Humor and the American Presidency, says: 'It was a comforting collection of lighter fare before bed. It was for people who work second shifts in factories, people who just wanted a joke or two and a celebrity interview before they drop off. It was a cultural experience back in the days of Carson where you had one show that dominated above all and it had those moments that people would talk about the next day at work.'
Not any more. The late-night format has been struggling for years as viewers increasingly cut the cable TV cord and migrate to streaming. Younger people are more apt to find amusement on YouTube or TikTok, leaving smaller, ageing TV audiences and declining ad revenues. Whereas the Late Show might once have raked in about $100m a year, it now reportedly loses $40m a year – giving CBS a convenient pretext to pull the plug and claim it was 'purely a financial decision'.
Farnsworth, the director of the Center for Leadership and Media Studies at the University of Mary Washington in Fredericksburg, Virginia, adds: 'The big problem with late-night comedy in recent years is the problem with all traditional media in recent years. When you move to an online environment with podcasts and on demand, it's hard to get people to pay attention in a place where the ad rates are the highest.
'There are plenty of people watching Colbert clips throughout the day on all kinds of platforms. But when you're talking about advertising revenue, it's mainly the eyeballs fixed on this TV screen. That's where the money is made, but it's also where the decline has been the greatest.'
Late-night TV began in the 1950s as the postwar consumer boom made TV sets widespread, including in many bedrooms. Networks saw potential in late-night slots to capture audiences, especially younger viewers and urban professionals.
The first notable show was Broadway Open House on NBC, created by Sylvester 'Pat' Weaver (the father of the actor Sigourney Weaver). Airing from 11pm to midnight, it introduced a casual, variety-style format with comedy, music and guest interviews, setting the template for future shows.
The definitive late-night programme was The Tonight Show, premiering in 1954 on NBC with host Steve Allen, whose wit and improvisational style were so successful that he got moved to prime time. His successor Jack Paar added emotional depth and conversational interviews during his five-year reign.
Then came Carson, whose 30-year run solidified The Tonight Show as a cultural institution, pulling in between 10 million and 15 million viewers a night at its peak. Born in Iowa and raised in Nebraska, Carson's charm went well beyond coastal cities to middle America. He interviewed presidents, performed impressions of them and told jokes at their expense but wore his own politics lightly.
Farnsworth comments: 'They were jokes that never were biting. A joke about Ronald Reagan being a little confused is hardly the same thing as the kind of fare that's provided today. But it's important to remember that was a tamer time in American politics too. As America has gotten more partisan and voters and politicians themselves have gotten much harsher, late-night comedy has reflected those changing realities.
'I don't think Carson would be anywhere near as successful today. His relatively tame approach to humour would strike a lot of contemporary viewers as out of touch in the same way that, had Colbert been on the air in the 80s, he wouldn't have gotten very far.'
Carson's success inspired competitors including CBS, which launched The Late Show with David Letterman in 1993. The Daily Show, a spoof news programme with mock reporters, began on the cable network Comedy Central three years later.
Under Stewart, the Daily Show gave late-night a satirical edge, exposing the hypocrisy of politicians and the media with lacerating commentary and smartly edited video clips. A spin-off, The Colbert Report, was a searing parody in which Colbert played an exaggerated, bombastic version of a conservative news host and coined the term 'truthiness'.
Bill Carter, the author of the book The Late Shift and executive producer of the CNN docuseries The Story of Late Night, says: 'Jon Stewart, more than anyone else in that era, brought point of view to what he did, certainly more than Letterman and Leno ever did. Young people loved it. He was breaking news to them. They didn't pay attention to news; they watched his show and they'd find out things from watching his show.'
Among that generation was Tyler Hall, 36, who recalls growing up inspired by the Daily Show's iconoclastic take on the 2003 Iraq war. He says from New York: 'That was so appealing, to think that you can speak with moral authority while still being fun and funny and not preachy and shouty. It felt like a dream to put a finger in the eye of people who were oppressing and causing harm.
'I've always thought there was something kind of punk rock about Colbert tricking people in his interviews in those early days because they thought he was for real, or Jon Stewart spitting back in people's faces their own video clips. It felt badass. The teenage version of me wanted to be part of it and was fortunate to be part of it.'
Hall got a job as as a researcher at The Colbert Report and followed Colbert to The Late Show in 2015. Even as Stewart stepped away from the Daily Show to make way for the South African comedian Trevor Noah, his legacy lived on as proteges such as Samantha Bee, Jordan Klepper, John Oliver, Larry Wilmore and Roy Wood Jr forged their own paths.
Hall reflects: 'There was certainly an abundance, a diversity, you could even say, a glut of these late-night political shows. There would honestly be times where we could all accidentally write the same punchline off the same thing of the day. We didn't know what the other one was writing, but inevitably enough of the same smart people writing on the same topic bang out the same basic joke.'
Having initially struggled with the transition to a major network, appearing as himself rather than a character, Colbert found his voice in the era of Trump. His nightly monologues skewering the president are sardonic, silly, smart, snarky and sublime, an invaluable body of work for future historians seeking to understand the decade when America lost its mind. They also carry a rare moral force.
David Litt, a former speechwriter for Barack Obama whose books include It's Only Drowning, says: 'What stood out was Colbert's kindness as an individual and his public persona as an upstanding citizen. That stands in real contrast to Donald Trump. Colbert was the personification of the idea that people who believe in basic decency have a natural inclination toward saying: 'I want nothing to do with Trump and I have no interest in bending the knee.'
'The Maga frustration with Colbert was you had this person who was a religious Catholic from South Carolina, in many ways not easy to dismiss as a coastal elite or crazy socialist. And what he was saying is that it is deeply American to oppose this man and to find what he's doing both ridiculous and abhorrent.'
The Late Show became the most watched late-night programme with ratings peaking at 3.1 million viewers during the 2017-18 season, according to Nielsen data. But not even Colbert was immune to the tectonic plates shifting beneath the format. In the season that ended in May his audience averaged 1.9 million. The show's ad revenue plummeted to $70.2m last year from $121.1m in 2018, according to the ad tracking firm Guideline.
Carter, who has written four books about TV, is not surprised. 'It's of a piece with the end of linear TV,' he says. 'The regular primetime programming that's on the old traditional networks has faded to the point where the ratings stagger me how small they are. It's like a pond that's shrinking in the sun. It's getting smaller and smaller.
'CBS has made the point that they were losing money and we have to believe them; I'm sure they have finances that show that. But it didn't look to me like they did a whole lot to counter that.'
Carter notes that some late-night shows have saved money by ditching their live band or reducing the number of nights they broadcast. But CBS, whose parent company was accused by Colbert of paying a 'big fat bribe' to Trump just three days before the cancellation, made little effort to adapt or save the format.
'I don't know exactly how they handled this, but the shows became somewhat bloated. When Colbert talked about this last week, he said I want to thank the 200 people who work on the show, and one of Letterman's former producers spoke to me and said: 'They have 200 people on their show?' The shrinkage was happening but it didn't look like CBS was doing that much that I could see until they totally pulled the plug.'
Indeed, CBS appears to be ready to give up on late-night. When The Late Late Show host James Corden left in 2023, the network opted not to hire a replacement. The network also cancelled After Midnight this year after host Taylor Tomlinson chose to return to full-time standup comedy.
Late-night comedians have followed their younger audiences online, releasing clips to YouTube or TikTok. But digital advertising does not make up for the lost TV ad revenue.
Carter observes: 'They have very big subscriber bases. Jimmy Kimmel of ABC and Jimmy Fallon of NBC both have over 15 million to 20 million people subscribe to their TikTok or YouTube channels. That's an enormous number of people but they have not been able to monetise that.
'People watch it whenever they feel like it, which is the way television works now. It's very hard, if you're not compelled to watch something, to then commercialise it. How do you get commercials into that? In the past, people would sit through the commercials with Johnny Carson and wait till he came back. People try to avoid commercials now.'
He adds: 'It isn't like the idea of late-night is bad or weak or old or used up. It's that the distribution method has changed so dramatically that making money off the old format is very difficult.'
Farnsworth agrees: 'The shows haven't failed. The shows have kept up with the changing preferences but you simply don't get the same advertising revenue online that you do with over-the-air broadcasts.
'These are shows that draw millions of viewers every evening, not to mention millions of more viewers through other platforms. There's an audience for this. It may not be as big as it was, but no audience is. There's nothing that television could do to recreate must-see TV or the popularity of All in the Family or M*A*S*H today. People just don't consume media the same way.'
He concludes: 'Ultimately the strategy for the remaining shows is living with less. You're going to have to figure out ways to cut the staff, maybe air fewer nights a week. This is definitely a warning signal for the genre of late-night humour. But it's not a death knell.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Ghislaine Maxwell: could talking about Epstein be her get out of jail free card?
Ghislaine Maxwell: could talking about Epstein be her get out of jail free card?

The Guardian

time26 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

Ghislaine Maxwell: could talking about Epstein be her get out of jail free card?

Since Ghislaine Maxwell met with federal prosecutors last week, the imprisoned British socialite's legal team has portrayed her as a beacon of truth willing to discuss all matters related to her child sex-trafficking co-conspirator Jeffrey Epstein's many crimes. 'Ghislaine answered every single question asked of her over the last day and a half. She answered those questions honestly, truthfully, to the best of her ability,' attorney David Oscar Markus told reporters. 'She never invoked a privilege. She never refused to answer a question.' Maxwell's highly unusual two-day sit-down with the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche – who served as Donald Trump's criminal defense attorney before working for his justice department – came as the US president tiptoes through a political minefield related to Epstein and his own social links to the disgraced former financier. But Blanche's meeting – held amid rumors and denials of a pardon for Maxwell shortly before her sudden move on Friday to a Texas prison – did not just show Trump's flagging efforts at damage control over the Epstein scandal. Maxwell is simultaneously pursuing several other strategies to be freed from her 20-year federal prison sentence. And, some experts believe, Maxwell's ultimate aim is probably not really revealing the whole truth and everything she knows about Epstein, Trump and other powerful figures. Instead, it is all about earning her freedom. Maxwell's team is pushing the US supreme court to consider her appeal, which contends that she was shielded from prosecution in Epstein's controversial 2007 plea agreement – an argument that has been opposed by the same justice department that has now met with her. Maxwell is also trying to make the most of a congressional subpoena, threatening to invoke her fifth amendment right against self-incrimination unless she is given immunity. Her legal team has also suggested clemency – which Trump could grant immediately. This broad-spectrum approach, which several longtime defense attorneys said represented sound legal strategy, has prompted skepticism about whether any discussions reflect an actual desire to reveal truth. More, Maxwell's track record of alleged lying undermines whatever truths Trump officials claim they want to reveal in highly publicized meetings. 'If I were representing her, I would be doing exactly the same thing. The supreme court petition has virtually no chance of success. The issues raised are not novel or of general relevance to other cases,' said Ron Kuby, a longtime defense attorney whose practice focuses on civil rights. Kuby told the Guardian that the supreme court agrees to take on 'only the smallest fraction' of petitions. 'Filing a supreme court petition is akin to playing the lotto, you can't win unless you play, but your likelihood of winning is slim, so it's a last-ditch effort that defendants use when they have enough money for full due process.' The parallel strategy of actively pursuing clemency with the Trump administration is sound because Trump could commute her sentence or issue a pardon, Kuby said. 'Because these are all federal convictions, he can let her out of jail tomorrow,' he added. As for why Maxwell would seem willing to shed light on Epstein despite a low likelihood of a positive outcome, 'she has nothing to lose. 'The question isn't 'why would she meet with them'? She'll do anything for people who can help with this,' Kuby said. Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founding partner of the Colorado firm Varner Faddis, voiced similar sentiments about Maxwell's strategy. 'For anyone who's been sentenced to 20 years in prison, it would behoove them to explore all potential avenues to try and better their legal position, and it looks like that's what Maxwell is doing here,' Faddis said. Other legal experts agree. 'Maxwell's attorneys are doing everything they can to keep her out of prison,' said John Day, a former prosecutor in New Mexico who founded the John Day Law Office. The Epstein controversy swirling around Trump may prove an excellent opportunity that few could have foreseen. 'This is a moment in time that wasn't there before, where she suddenly has an opening to try to get a change in her situation,' Day said. 'Up until the Epstein case resurfaced and the Epstein-Trump issues came to the forefront of people's attention, Maxwell was just doing her time. 'Suddenly, she is trying to make the case that she has information, and she has information that's worth trading for, and she's hoping, her lawyers are hoping, that somehow someone is going to decide that it's worth giving her a break.' Should Maxwell receive any favorable outcome, it might do little to promote truth and much to foment uncertainty. 'If there is some kind of a deal that came out of the nine hours that Todd Blanche met with her, then any information that comes out of that is always going to be seen in the context of 'what was the deal?'' Day said. Indeed, Trump's handling of the Epstein files has done little but sow doubt. The Trump justice department released a memo insisting there was no Epstein client list, and decided not to release extensive case files, despite his campaign promise to do so. This backtracking on releasing documents helped fan the flames of controversy that came after the publication of a Wall Street Journal article claiming that Trump contributed a 'bawdy' letter to a birthday present for Epstein – compiled by Maxwell. Shortly after the story ran, Trump announced that he had directed his justice department to request the unsealing of grand jury transcripts in Epstein and Maxwell's criminal cases. This purported push for transparency, vis-a-vis Bondi's request for unsealing, does not appear to have quelled backlash against Trump. The Wall Street Journal on 23 July reported that Bondi told Trump his name appeared in the Epstein files on multiple occasions. Epstein, whom prosecutors stated abused girls as young as 14, had long enjoyed the company of numerous high-profile men in his circle – among them Trump and Britain's Prince Andrew. Epstein killed himself in jail awaiting trial six years ago. Trump's camp has insisted that a pardon is not in the works, with a senior administration official saying: 'No leniency is being given or discussed. That's just false. The president himself has said that clemency for Maxwell is not something he is even thinking about at this time.' But at other times, Trump's comments on the issue have raised eyebrows, with him saying: 'I'm allowed to do it, but it's something I have not thought about.' He has also remarked: 'Well, I'm allowed to give her a pardon, but nobody's approached me with it. Nobody's asked me about it' and that 'Right now, it would be inappropriate to talk about it.' Top congressional Republicans are toeing the line when it comes to the idea of potential presidential relief, including the House speaker, Mike Johnson. 'Well, I mean, obviously that's a decision of the president,' Johnson said on Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press. 'I won't get in front of him. That's not my lane.' The political benefit for Trump from a pardon – however unlikely – remains nearly nil, as it would do little to support his prior claims about wanting the truth revealed. 'The giant problem here – although what we have seen is that people are capable of believing all kinds of things if Trump says they are true – I don't think there's anything that Ghislaine Maxwell can say that will put any of this to rest,' Kuby said. 'Certainly, the optics of giving an actual convicted child [abuser] clemency does not easily align with the right wing's purported concern about child abuse.'

Real reason why Hulk Hogan was estranged from daughter Brooke revealed by her husband
Real reason why Hulk Hogan was estranged from daughter Brooke revealed by her husband

Daily Mail​

timean hour ago

  • Daily Mail​

Real reason why Hulk Hogan was estranged from daughter Brooke revealed by her husband

Brooke Hogan stopped speaking to her father, late WWE legend Hulk Hogan, because of the way he treated her - not because of his new wife, Sky Daily. That is according to Brooke's husband, former NHL star Steven Oleksy, who has lifted the lid on the estrangement in the years before Hogan's death last month. The wrestling icon suffered a cardiac arrest and passed away at the age of 71. By then, Hogan had gone nearly a decade without speaking to Brooke, 36. The family rift spilled into the open earlier this year but now Oleksy has opened up on why Brooke turned away from her dad. He told PEOPLE that it was 'not the case at all' that Brooke cut communications because she disapproved of his new marriage to Daily and accused Hogan of pushing that false narrative. 'My wife will say it — it had nothing to do with his new wife. It had to do with the way he treated (Brooke),' Oleksy said. 'It was a situation where she loved her dad very, very much.' But Oleksy claimed that Brooke paid a heavy price for standing by her father, who found himself at the center of several scandals - including when he used racial slurs in reference to Brooke's ex-boyfriend. That support had 'really taken a toll on her,' her husband said. Oleksy and Brooke tied the knot in June 2022 without Hogan. Oleksy claims that the wrestling legend told him he 'doesn't do weddings or funerals anymore.' And the final straw, according to Oleksy, was a 'series of phone calls' between father and daughter when 'there were some things said, and a lot of mistruths.'

Kristi Noem's DHS is posting 1800s-style ‘fascist propaganda' art to encourage Americans to ‘Protect the Homeland'
Kristi Noem's DHS is posting 1800s-style ‘fascist propaganda' art to encourage Americans to ‘Protect the Homeland'

The Independent

timean hour ago

  • The Independent

Kristi Noem's DHS is posting 1800s-style ‘fascist propaganda' art to encourage Americans to ‘Protect the Homeland'

The Department of Homeland Security is accused of sharing thinly-veiled nativist propaganda on social media through art as it pursues a sweeping campaign of mass deportations. Throughout July, the X account of the department run by Kristi Noem posted a steady stream of paintings exemplifying a very particular version of the 'homeland.' That has included posting the 1872 work American Progress by John Gast, in which an ethereal Lady Liberty floats above the Western landscape, as white settlers advance across the frame with stage coaches and rail lines, while Native Americans and buffalo run to the margins. Another X post features the contemporary painting A Prayer for a New Life, by Morgan Weistling, a close-up of a white pioneer couple clutching a baby in the back of a covered wagon, along with the caption, ' Remember your Homeland's Heritage.' A third such post includes Morning Pledge, a nostalgic mid-20th century scene of kids in a small town walking towards an American flag, as painted by Thomas Kinkade. The creators and guardians of these works have expressed outrage over being drafted into DHS publicity — and history and politics experts have also raised concerns over this art being used as 'propaganda'. Weistling said he wasn't consulted prior to the Trump administration using his work. The Kinkade Family Foundation, meanwhile, said Morning Pledge was also being used without permission, perverted to 'promote division and xenophobia associated with the ideals of DHS.' The foundation told The Independent that Kinkade, who died in 2012, struggled in life with poverty as a child and substance abuse as an adult. He viewed his paintings, known for their soft, glowing light, as a way to 'imagine a different kind of world, where warmth, safety, and belonging are human rights for all.' Beyond the canvas, Kinkade helped raise millions for the poor, while his foundation has handed out thousands of therapeutic art kits, including in farmworker communities. 'That vision wasn't meant for a select few, but for everyone,' the foundation said in an email. 'Throughout his life, Thomas sought to respond to moments of hardship with compassion and solidarity, standing with communities made vulnerable.T o see his work used in ways that promote exclusion and division betrays the very heart of what he stood for.' The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement that the agency 'honors artwork that celebrates America's heritage and history, and we are pleased that the media is highlighting our efforts to showcase these patriotic pieces.' 'If the media needs a history lesson on the brave men and women who blazed the trails and forged this Republic from the sweat of their brow, we are happy to send them a history textbook,' Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in the statement. 'This administration is unapologetically proud of American history and American heritage.' According to Richard White, a distinguished historian of the West and professor emeritus at Stanford University, DHS's use of works like American Progress is as ironic as it is revealing. The painting depicted a highly nostalgic, mythologized version of the country even at the moment it was created. In reality, instead of the peaceful scene, violence was everywhere, with the U.S. Army (not pictured in the painting) involved in violent, dispossessing wars with indigenous tribes across the West, and groups like the KKK carrying out racist terror campaigns against newly emancipated Black people after the U.S. Civil War. 'It's not about history,' White said of American Progress, but rather a 'mythic narrative' of America. 'The original picture erased the reality around it.' White suspects the Trump administration is using the painting now for a similar purpose. The historian lives in Los Angeles, where masked federal immigration agents and military troops spent weeks conducting dragnet immigration operations, an effort he compares to the Nazi regime's Gestapo secret police. 'The real problem is what's actually happening on the streets of Los Angeles and other cities,' he said. Journalist Spencer Ackerman, author of Reign of Terror: How the 9/11 Era Destabilized America and Produced Trump, sees similar far-right currents in DHS's images, strains of nativism he argues have existed just below the surface at the department since its founding in 2002 after the 9/11 terror attacks. 'It was definitely a crypto-right wing move from the start after 9/11 to use a word like 'homeland' in particular in the context of security,' he told The Independent. Prior to this point, he said, the term 'homeland' was not in mainstream use in this way in the U.S. It had the ring of European-style nationalism (and worse) back then, a poor fit for a pluralist democracy in which most of the population, at some point in history, came from somewhere else. Trump's DHS, however, has taken this implicit ideology to the explicit extreme, Ackerman argued, using the tools of 'far-right internet culture' to provoke people by using jarring memes plus the 'classic fascist propaganda' of armed agents kicking in doors to arrest mostly non-white people. 'This is a turn. This is different,' he said. 'This is very racialized, very essentialized propaganda that DHS did not previously explicitly traffic in, even if this probably reflects the id of the Department of Homeland Security that whole time.' The administration's immigration PR efforts have extended beyond the DHS X account and its selection of pioneer paintings. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has earned the derisive nickname ' ICE Barbie ' from critics for her frequent photo-ops in cowboy oufits and combat-ready gear matching with the various agencies under her purview. Both Trump and Noem have featured in wartime-style recruiting posters urging viewers to 'Defend the Homeland, Join ICE Today,' as the administration offers $50,000 sign-on bonuses for new ICE officers. Trump has long leaned into a nostalgic aesthetic as a notable part of his politics. One of his final executive orders in 2020 involved a demand that all new federal buildings in Washington be built in the ' beautiful ' neo-classical style, with marble and columns meant to evoke the temples of ancient Greece and Rome, while his signature political slogan, 'Make America Great Again,' includes an unmistakable nod to a heroic past. Government officials have long trafficked in tropes and propaganda about disfavored groups, too, White said, pointing to the virulently racist popular depictions of the Japanese during WWII. What stands out in this present era, however, is the seeming commitment of whole government departments to producing such images. In time, however, White said even these purposely exclusionary images of national propaganda reveal their limitations. 'In myth, nothing ever changes,' he said. 'In history, things do change.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store